Rob Sanderson writes:
> I agree with Theo and Mike.
>
> x-1-userpass=(username):(password)
>
> (Note slight revision to include the LC 'namespace')
>
> Which may, at the server's discretion, return a token as per the
> existing specification. If it doesn't return a token, or the client
> doesn't care about the token, then the client can happily continue to
> supply the username and password on every request.
>
> Then all combinations of userpass and token servers/clients will work
> together gracefully. Eg:
>
> UP client, UP server: Client sends UP on everything, Server expects UP
> on everything
> UP client, token server: Client sends UP on everything, Server responds
> with token, which client ignores.
> token client, UP server: Client sends UP on first, Server doesn't
> respond with token, client continues to send UP as expected by server
> token client, token server: Client sends UP, Server responds with token,
> Client then sends token.
>
> Yes?
Yes to all.
(Even to the rather opaque "1" in the parameter name :-)
_/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "It takes a certain kind of bad writer to write badly sincerely"
-- Richard Sherbaniuk.
|